turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Two Fronts
Creating this is probably very premature, but hell, if Silver let's a title slip, might as well run with it. We can move it if it gets retitled between now and July, 2013. In the meantime-I suppose a successful Coup d'Etat ''could account for ''Two Fronts. But not automatically. TR 17:39, December 7, 2011 (UTC) I also don't see much point in creating a 2013 Works category yet. While I'm sure it will be justified in the fullness of time, right now it seems silly to have one item with a tentative title. TR 17:46, December 7, 2011 (UTC) :It's pretty impossible to speculate about the title without having read CdE, but I'd suggest that the book would not be called "two fronts" simply in reference to the resumption of one of the two-front wars the belligerent powers were already in earlier in the series: Germany fighting the British and/or French while also fighting the Soviets, or the Soviets fighting the Japanese while also fighting the Germans. In either of those cases the title would fairly scream "Hey, you can skip Books 3 and 4 and not miss much!" (with the unspoken caveat of "And since Book 1 is barely readable, you can just about write off the whole series up to this point!") The British are currently in a two-front war, which is pretty new for them as of the end of TBS, but by the time CdE ends that will become old news. :So the two-front scenario is one which is a new development, probably realized or at least heavily hinted at at the end of CdE. Maybe the US finally gets involved in Europe--almost certainly as an enemy of Germany, especially with FDR having been reelected. Maybe they've had casus belli for a while but public opinion couldn't stomach waging war against a traditional ally like Britain (even though the tradition of an Atlanticist alliance was not a very longstanding one in the early 1940s, or wouldn't've been by then if they hadn't been firmly on the same side of the first half of WWII). After the eponymous coup d'etat in Britain in Book 4, that impediment is removed and the US can jump on Hitler. :Or maybe in Book 4 Germany falls, possibly dragging France or even Britain down with it, and the Soviets turn their attention to revanchism in Northeast Asia. Now Japan is fighting on two fronts--three if you count the Second Sino-Japanese War, though for some reason people often don't--as Washington and Moscow do a little bromancing, beating up on Japan and congratulating one another on resisting the temptation to fascism that overtook all the other great powers. :But either of those would shift the focus of the series away from Europe. While it's not impossible that HT would decide to do so, that particular whisker's going to stick up when Occam gets out his razor. So maybe the two fronts refers to Britain and/or France (but probably Britain, since it's the country with a home front POV who's into politics, assuming of course he continues doing through CdE what he was doing when we left him off) fighting both at home, as politics turns bloody, and abroad. :Also, I quite agree that the 2013 category can wait. Turtle Fan 20:17, December 7, 2011 (UTC) Cover-Copy Intro This seems to be a preliminary summary. I expect something more detailed as we get closer to the release date. http://www.risingshadow.net/library?action=book&book_id=39529 TR (talk) 18:15, January 30, 2013 (UTC) :D;oh, and I was right: this is already out at Del Rey: http://www.randomhouse.com/book/206971/war-that-came-early-two-fronts-by-harry-turtledove TR (talk) 18:17, January 30, 2013 (UTC) I approve of the more vague approach in this volume as compared to the last couple. Helps keep my expectations lower/more reasonable. The downside of course is that there isn't a whole hell of a lot to base speculation on. :: What do we make of the cover? The medal is a Soviet medal with the Russian inscription "For the Defense of Leningrad." Is it just creative and artistic or does it foreshadow anything?JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::I highly doubt it's Leningrad specifically; the cover medals we've seen thus far haven't corresponded with specific actions like that. It would be fair yo ecpect a more Soviet-centered story generally, just as last year's was more Brit-centered . . . well, in theory it was. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::Cover discussion: File talk:TwoFronts.jpg. I'm beginning to think that medals are the new theme for the cover art. The paperback version of TBS has an entirely different cover from the HC, sporting an Iron Cross. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :Eh, I guess. I find the speculation tends to be more interesting than the reading, so I'd prefer more hints. I'm sure Silver and other reviewers will provide them. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC) "Eastern" Europe "Russia and Germany go toe-to-toe in Eastern Europe"— When the last volume ended, Germany and its allies were on Russian soil, much further east than Eastern Europe. Is that a summary-writer gaff or does that mean the USSR is pushing the Germans back out? :Not to be too pedantic but Europe is generally considered to extend east to the Ural Mountains which is east of Moscow. So being in Western Russia but east of Moscow is still in Europe. ML4E (talk) 19:41, January 30, 2013 (UTC) ::I'd had the same thought. The location of the line between Eastern and Central Europe really is a matter of opinion. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC) :::I guess I know that in my rational brain, but some part thinks of Russia as an Asian country geographically. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Conventional Weapons "Germany wheels out new tanks and planes"--Nelg can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Tiger I came into being in 1942, so something analogous to that. Planes are more nebulous, but I doubt we'll see jets. Well, yes, the Tiger I was rushed into combat as early as 23rd September '42. The wiki site says this and yes, that was what happened. However, they also had mechanical problems, which Harry also stressed in the Worldwar saga. The reason I bring this up is it may be premature, but it leads me to think we may be experiencing Heinrich Jaeger all over again. As for the planes. Well, I'm going to have to say it could very well be the FW-190. I can't find any reference to the plane in Coup D'Etat, surprising how it ends at late '41 and the plane was already flying by then. That's the only thing I can think off. Unless Harry decides to throw us a curve ball and pulls another Worldwar on us and have the Germans start throwing the Heinkel He 178 or 280 into combat. Mr Nelg In OTL the fancy tanks didn't get mass produced and ultimately didn't make the difference. Also, are the Nazis using the Skoda Works in Czechoslovakia to upgrade their arsenal?JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :I think I recall something about the Germans using Skoda from an earlier installment, yes. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC) : That is indeed correct. In “The Big Switch,” Pg. 127 Kindle, it's mentioned that the Germans got the place back up and running, but only turning out Czech tanks. Mr Nelg Thanks for the verification. So maybe the Nazis will have Skoda manufacturing German tanks in this book. JudgeFisher (talk) 07:22, February 10, 2013 (UTC) Just been thinking lately. The tanks made me wonder. The books probably going to end at the end of 1942, or the beginning of 1943. Harry might decided to end the book with a Battle of Kursk analogue, hence why that guy mentioned the new German tanks. I think that the Russians may launch their own offensive against them and the Germans surprise them with new tanks. My theory is that Germany will be hard pressed on two fronts in book five, and look like she's going to lose only to pull out an ace at the last minute. That's one theory and that's just going by the assumption that Harry has grown tired of using Stalingrad analogues. Mr Nelg While that would be a welcome change, I somehow think there can be no Kursk before Stalingrad. But I've been proven wrong before.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Huh? The Kursk analogue would be a massive tank vs tank battle. A Stalingrad analogue would have a huge army fight it's why into an industrialised city, before being trapped inside. Why would you need to have that kind of analogue before you can have huge tank vs tank battle? Mr Nelg OTL's Battle of Kursk was an attempt by the Germans to eliminate the Soviet bulge at Kursk created precisely because of their defeat at Stalingrad. While we tend to think of it as the world's biggest tank battle, it was also the world's biggest defensive works - ten times deeper than the Maginot Line and three times what was necessary to contain the Germans. I am not disagreeing with you though; maybe HT is envisioning that there will be a large tank vs. tank battle that stands on its own. I guess I should clarify what I meant by no Kursk before Stalingrad: my gut feeling is that HT won't let go of the Stalingrad analogue. We had hints of it with the mention of the front line petering out somewhere near Smolensk. But maybe after the defeat at Smolensk, the Germans get another chance by winning at the ATL "Kursk." - the Soviets may not have the intelligence they had in OTL to prepare for the attack and lose their momentum, confidence, elan, what have you. Basically I don't expect HT to go the way of Robert Conroy and do a "Russiascrew" in this series the way Conroy does it in...oh...every book of his ;-) JudgeFisher (talk) 07:22, February 10, 2013 (UTC) "Japan deploys weapons of a different sort in China"-their various bio-weapons, obviously. The more interesting question is: will they release stuff in India? The plan was shot down in CdE, but a year later, things might be more desperate. That is a possibility, but they'd have to be in the dire straights they were in '45 for that to happen, as we know that historically, the Japanese did try to lunch germ weapons against the US with balloons; and failed. Before they decided to use them, the Japanese High Command believed that they could defeat the US by decisive conventional battle. After that became impossible, THEN, they resorted to the germs, but not on the battle field. The Japanese know the instant they use these weapons on any of the western powers, the genie will be out of the bottle. If they do use germs against the US or British, then it'll be a propaganda disaster worse than OTL Pearl Harbour. I'm going to say no on that matter, and that they'll stick to using them against the Chinese. But it will cause alarm in the Western Powers, and make them sit up and take notices. This is the one aspect I honestly can't predict. You have to remember, that there's no OTL pearl Harbour shock to the US. The US has suffered defeat after defeat, so the nation will be looking for some kind of pay back. When the tide of the war turns in favour of the US, the germ weapons could very well end up creating a divide among the nation as to continue pushing against the Japanese or call it a day. That's just one theory. Mr Nelg Another theory on how the germ weapons might spill out onto the battle field could be through escalation. We know that the Japanese will use them against the Chinese, and that their research is more wide spread than OTL. So, my theory is that the western powers will take alarm at this, and send the Chinese germ weapons of their own. The Chinese could even use them against Japanese settlers in Manchuria as payback for using them on Chinese villages, Which they did in OTL. The Japanese could discover this and use them against the western powers on the claim “They started it.” Mr Nelg "Seeds of Rebellion" "And here are the seeds of rebellion"-Now that's interesting. We've already had the one rebellion in the UK, but it's not really a legal one. But we've also had the two failed coups in Germany, with Galen still a dangling plot line. :It's very likely in Germany. It's always possible in the USSR if Stalin looks weak enough, though we really don't have the POV coverage to do it right there. It's an outside possibility in France, since there seems to be a pretty wide divide between high command and ground pounders. No potential for it in Japan, nor in the US; though at the intersection between the two, I've always thought it would be interesting to do an AH where smooth-talking Japanese propagandists plus memories of the brutal colonization of the Philippines leads the Filipinos to rise up against the US, as the Burmese did against the Brits before realizing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was no bargain. Naturally the Filipinos would reach the same conclusion sooner or later. :I guess there could be another round in Britain, especially if the junta keeps postponing a general election. One thing I didn't see coming in CdE--aside from the fact that HT didn't actually bother writing the event he named the entire book after--was that there's more popular support for Wilson than for the junta. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC) :Very interesting indeed. We know that Harry is attempting to put world war I into world war 2, and what caused the Russians and the Germans to bow out was the home front cracking first. Russia only has one front going at the moment, but if she erupts into rebellion, that could hinder her war with Germany. Give Germany hope of fighting a two front war and possibly dragging it out longer with the British and French realising that they may have to be the ones to defeat Germany rather than relying on the sheer numbers of Russians to help do it for them. I'm going to say that there will be rebellion in Russia. Mr Nelg :::The blurb was something about "orders that once issued cannot be taken back," What if the Nazis pressure the Poles to do something about their Jews or the Nazis will do something for them and the Poles refuse? Although that may not be smart, England and France being so far away, and the USSR so close.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::Possible. You've got to figure that's coming at some point, though as with the A-bomb, it's not too clear why HT would pointedly ignore it all this time just to pull it out later. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::I could see something like that, since it does later remind us that the Jews aren't in death camps yet. :::::On the other hand, he also says "commanders issuing orders", which suggests to me, anyway, the possibility of one of those horrible bloody battles where lives are lost in terrifying numbers for little to no gain. ::::::Commanders does suggest a more military problem, yes, and a ridiculously bloody all-for-nothing battle fits that bill. ::::::Then there are groups like the Einsatzgruppen and Waffen-SS who sort of blur the line between military and ideological leadership. The latter has already attempted one massacre that we know of, and we also saw other characters talking about it elsewhere, so it's gained a certain notoriety among characters as well as readers. ::::::If there are a lot of racist Nazi bastards in positions of military leadership, and they're sick of being kept on a short leash for the sake of maintaining an alliance, the obvious trick would be to use military necessity as a stalking horse to make increasingly draconian anti-Jewish measures in the occupied territories more palatable to the allies in question. If these groups of rebels include a statistically significant percentage of Jews, conditions could be right for such a move. ::::::Of course, military necessity is most urgent in the USSR, and any rebellions there can only help ThirCo; even if they're fighting ThirCo as well as the Red Army, they're still diverting resources that the Soviets would otherwise be able to use on the primary front. No matter how many checks there are against Hitler's racism in this timeline, it's damned impossible to imagine that Jews of all people would have "help the Nazis win" as their first choice. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::I wouldn't say HT/Germany has been ignoring the Jews, or rather, that the less rabid approach probably demonstrates that the Germans have more to worry about here, and that the Jews are gaining a comparative benefit. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, poor choice of words. On the other hand, the fact that HT is investing so much in showing a different path for the Final Solution makes it hard for me to accept that it's all going to wind up in the same place in the end. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC) But then again, there's also this: "Dangerous new nationalist powers arise in Eastern Europe." That could be just about anyone, really. Perhaps the seeds of rebellion are in Slovakia or Poland? That's what jumped out at me. TR (talk) 18:52, January 30, 2013 (UTC) :If they're considering European SSRs Eastern Europe, it could be Soviet minorities. Since we have an Armenian POV, he'd be well positioned to give us some of that. ::That could tie in with the previous point about "seeds of rebellion". ML4E (talk) 21:46, January 31, 2013 (UTC) ::::I think it's pretty certain it will be the Banderists/Ukrainian nationalists, as was foreshadowed with their encounter with Ivan Kuchkov. Then again, it may be Hungary and Romania, which gives credibility to my theory of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia coming into the war.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::Foreshadowing? It's confirmed that they exist in this timeline, but that doesn't make anything inevitable. As for Hungary and Romania, they've bern pretty insignificant to date storywise. I guess that could change, but it would have to be built up to pretty quickly to avoid the feeling that it's come out of nowhere. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::I'd forgotten about the Banderists. Early independence for the Ukraine is a thing HT likes to play with sometimes. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :If Eastern Europe means west of the Soviet border, Poland and Slovakia would be the obvious places to look. FirCo and SecCo didn't give them any grievances to speak of, but Germany may be a whole lot crankier now that Britain and France have left. ::As to Poland, I have to once again remember that Smigly-Rydz died in December 1941 of a heart attack, and that HT seems to enjoy having the scheduled natural death of a historical figure just play havoc with the plot. It still appears to be 1941 when CdE closes, so Smigly-Rydz could still drop dead, and just throw Poland out of whack, which in turn might create German intervention, etc. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::Heart failure is indeed a natural cause of death, but while some people are certainly much more prone to it than others, it's most often triggered by some very specific environmental factor. Smigly-Rydz's environment in this timeline is about as different from the same point in OTL as can realistically be expected. ::::True it is different, but it's worth remembering that he was interned for a time, then on the run for nearly two years before his death. I'm not sure how one can measure stress levels of that nature, but in TWPE he's trying to keep the USSR from overrunning the country while keeping an eye his alleged ally, and now he has to deal with the fact that Britain and and France have bailed. ::::I'm not going to bet the farm on it, but Smigly-Rydz's death sure fits the HT trope. TR (talk) 23:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::I don't disagree with that. If HT wants some sudden change in the status quo in Poland, anyway, this would seem to be the obvious way to do it. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:38, February 9, 2013 (UTC) :::Still, it's a good place to start. If he dies, of course, much depends on his successor. The only likely successor I can think of offhand who could possibly be interested in breaking with ThirCo is Anders, and only because he raised a volunteer force of Poles to fight alongside the Red Army in 1941. And then he switched sides within the Allied camp by leading them to British Palestine via Iran just a few months later. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::It's possible that Moscicki might decide to actually act like a president if Smigly-Rydz dies, and pull Poland out of ThirCo. Moscicki, from what I can tell, wasn't particularly pro-USSR, but he was frustrated with SR's more right-wing tendencies. At the minimum, he might pick a more moderate Inspector General to succeed Smigly-Rydz and let him worry about things. ::::As for a successor-Anders would be an obvious twee HT choice. Someone else mentioned Sikorsky a while back; Sikorsky did succeed SR in OTL, but that was more a consequence of circumstances. Still, he was trying to reopen ties to the USSR when he died, and he would be another tweedom. TR (talk) 23:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::::You know, one thing that's sort of bugged me about this series from the get go is that so many political leaders turn up but don't actually do anything. Their countries do something, or factions within the countries, but the men in charge are just sort of going along for the ride. I don't necessarily mean they're allowing others to make decisions for them, but they do seem to be lurching along on plot-convenient inertia. Take Smigly-Rydz: Poland's German alliance appears to be just a function of circumstance, and the fact that a right wing Russian-hating militarist is in power appears not to have factored in at all. Sure, Stalin fabricated an excuse to invade Poland by saying Smigly-Rydz was giving him a grievance, but he could have done that no matter who was in charge. A few hints that Ribbentrop was engaged in secret negotiations with S-R, negotiations that would be equivalent to OTL's Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would have added a great deal of interest value to the story. And it would have taken minimal effort on HT's part: Constantine Jenkins mentions to Peggy that they've noticed a lot of unusual activity down the street at the Polish embassy. :::::Even more bang for our buck could be had by S-R acting not as an agent of the Polish government but on his own personal authority and as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This way the secret negotiations also include German support for a military coup to replace Moscicki, consolidating military and political power. Then Smigly-Rydz looks like a German puppet and there's a real tension in Poland over whether his rule is legitimate, even as the war against the USSR remains popular. Now there's no doubt his death will be significant, as it forces the question of whether Poland will remain in the Coalitions without the personal charisma of the strong man who forced the nation into them. :::::Instead we have just the name Smigly-Rydz. If you're not familiar with who he was and what he stood for from other sources, he might as well be Joyce Peterman. :::::So my point is, choosing a successor to Smigly-Rydz, or transferring leadership duties to some other office, is really only meaningful as a game changer if HT departs from this unfortunate trend and has a powerful individual within a small country take some initiative. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:38, February 9, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I don't think Poland is in any position to make Germany its enemy, seeing how it would be sandwiched between Germany and the USSR as in OTL. France and England can't be of much help due to geographic restraints. Keep in mind Romania and Poland had very good relations up until World War II started due to their common front against the USSR, and that's going relatively well for them in this series. Furthermore, the Banderists/Ukrainian nationalists weren't well disposed towards the Poles either. There were many clashes and massacres between the Polish forces and the Banderists during the war. JudgeFisher (talk) 07:30, February 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Perhaps not, but rebels have been known to take on hopeless causes. It could also be that Poland, perhaps under Smigly-Rydz's successor, makes what it thinks is a very reasonable request for a greater role in ThirCo's leadership, or some other move to ensure its independence; Germany takes issue, and things snowball from there until unrest is provoked. Of course, Germany hasn't really done much to clip Poland's wings to date. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:21, February 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::Maybe the leadership change in Poland results in the Germans just flat out dismembering it and teaming up with the Banderists/Ukrainians. In OTL, Yugoslavia signed the Tri-partite Pact in March of '41, but a pro-British coup broke with it. The Nazis invaded Yugoslavia and supported the Ustashe/Croats in carving up Yugoslavia. That could be the dangerous new nationalist powers - a puppet Ukraine with large parts of Poland annexed to it. JudgeFisher (talk) 21:58, February 14, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::In response to a similar pro-Soviet coup, maybe, though that's not all that likely. In response to anything short of that, it's way, way too extreme a response. And it would shoot between the eyes any hopes Berlin might still harbor of attracting new allies. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:27, February 15, 2013 (UTC) :There's also Estonia and Lithuania, but neither has made any sort of a splash to date, so I don't see why that should matter. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC) ::They were mentioned in passing, but yeah, not very relevant. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Atomic Bomb This is really crawling out on a limb but I have a sense that we're finally going to see the beginnings of a nuke this time, based on what I read. On the shorter blurb we have the reference to "the now-unfamiliar war." I'm not sure what makes this situation any less familiar than the earlier ones. Total war in Europe is nothing new, neither is double-crossing allies. If it's supposed to be unfamiliar to the OTL-familiar reader (though surely anyone lacking the mental flexibility to accept these changed situations would have given up on Turtledove many years ago), having the Brits and French switch back makes this war more like OTL WWII than it was in Books 3 and 4. :I think the blurb writer is taking a holistic view of everything (e.g., war in '38, Spain's ongoing, the big switch, the big switch back, Poland is a German ally, no mass murder of the Jews yet, US in the Pacific only). Taken altogether, I think it's fair to say that the war is only passingly familiar when compared to OTL. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::Perhaps, but again, less so now than it was last year, when no such comment was made. Imagine if you used to know someone who was rather on the plump side, then ran into them years later and found they'd dropped a tremendous amount of weight, but you said nothing. Then six months later you saw them again; they were still much thinner than you remembered, but had more meat on their bones than the last time you'd seen them. Is that the point at which you'd comment? Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::But, but I'm not trying to get people to buy that person. I've also seen that person. We have no idea if the blurb writer has actually read TF--it's quite possible this is a summary of a summary. TR (talk) 23:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::Hmm, good point. And in the last fifteen years I've seen an awful lot of evidence that the Del Rey blurb writers don't know much about the books at all. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:45, February 9, 2013 (UTC) So where can the shakeup come from? I was thinking of some new superweapon, and of the new military doctrines it would necessitate. That could be the germ warfare in China, but the main focus of the story is the European theater, so that would really only matter if everyone and their brother suddenly said "Hey, I need to get me some of that!" and a worldwide bio-weapon free-for-all broke out. The other option would be nuclear weapons. Now I know of course that if HT just started dropping hints about them now, they wouldn't have an effect within the scope of this book; not even the faculty of a school best known for its classical languages programs could have a bomb ready that quickly, even if they had an above-ground lab located well within a hundred miles of a hostile border. Still it's a thought. Slightly more than a thought is "The United States, England, and France do what they can to strengthen themselves against imminent danger," from the longer blurb. It's possible they're already envisioning the nuclear deterrent. I can't think of much else that would call for such a coy comment right next to the far more specific descriptions of what others are doing. If the Western powers were just souping up their own tanks and planes, that comment would hardly be appropriate--unless it's a red herring? :Well, we know France is rebuilding the Maginot Line. We also know that Herb Druce is doing "things" in the States. The blurb writer may have made an intuitive leap, as it would certainly be logical for all three to do something or other (pillboxes on the Isle of Wight; ships patrolling New York Harbor; what have you). TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::Perhaps. I guess I'm biased toward assuming that the hints in the blurb will have the most dramatic payoff possible. I really should know better by now. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Now I have to wonder if the US, UK, and France are working together on the hypothetical nuclear project or not. They're allies in the Pacific, but that's a sideshow as far as just about everyone is concerned, and the French in particular are being almost as halfhearted about it as they were about the Second Mexican War. The US isn't even involved in Europe, so even considering FDR's pre-PH hatred of Hitler, and knowing that he was of course right, committing the resources the Manhattan Project required seems like overkill. Furthermore, now that the Brits and French have both double-crossed TWO allies in so short a period, it would be foolish for anyone to commit to cooperating with them on something so important and sensitive. So an American program, and an Anglo-French program, if they trust each other? Three programs, if the Brits and French don't trust each other? For traditional enemies, their interests seem to remain pretty closely aligned while everyone else is constantly reshuffling. On the other hand, the Manhattan Project was a collaborative effort drawing on pooled resources and personnel from across most of the Anglosphere, and really every country that participated held at least one key to the puzzle without which success would have been very unlikely. So if the US tries to do it all in-house, and the Brits either do the same or cobble together a team of partners which doesn't include the US (Canada and South Africa are obvious candidates, Canada for the brain power and South Africa for the world's largest uranium deposit; however either government feels about London's newfound penchant for musical chairs, neither can really afford to alienate it), it's quite possible both projects will fail. :In reviewing the history, even in the opening stages, British-American cooperation was very crucial in making Manhattan a reality. In the UK, Frisch and Peierls figured out in June 1939 that the critical mass of uranium was an order of magnitude small enough to be carried by a bomber. This kick-started the British a-bomb program in March 1940, and this information, when finally shared with various Americans in 1941, was pretty crucial to making the U.S. bomb project a reality. :I'm willing to believe that the US at least is in the very early stages, for reasons described elsewhere (in summary: the Einstein-Szilard or its analog could be written as early as September/October, 1938 in this timeline--the details would be different obviously; the war and early German success followed by the big switch would probably create more panic in Roosevelt, etc.) But Britain's early breakthroughs are pretty key to the whole thing, and whether or not they even took place is up for debate. :In TWPE, Britain is obviously at war in 1939. Frisch and Peierls's work might have been interrupted, halted, or unaffected. Thus, whether or not the UK is working on a bomb is pretty much author fiat. If they are (the various physicists could have decided to keep their mouths shut after Churchill's death; Chamberlain could have called the bomb a boondoggle a la Featherston, etc.), I'd bet dollars to donuts the more authoritarian tendencies of Chamberlain and Wilson would have prevented any sharing with the US, even though they were not officially enemies. FDR's swipe at them after the big switch would probably confirm that position. Moreover, I doubt FDR would trust Britain (or France) with such information after the big switch. Even after the British coup, the precarious position of the new government would make them a bad partner for FDR to rely on. Thus, any US project is probably on its own. (Which probably also means that any theoretical advantage an "early start" might have given it is neutralized.) ::Agreed on all points. However, if HT decides he wants atomic weapons in this series, I find it hard to imagine he won't have them. By any sane measure, the Confederate atomic project should never have borne fruit at all, even in a best-case scenario. Instead we had the Snake delay it for more than a year by shooting down Fitz's initial proposal. We had the thing based out of a college best known for its classical language programs, and well within the range of US reconnaissance aircraft. Rather than do proper counterintelligence--because the counterintelligence chief was forever being sent off on wild goose chases--they relied on US command being too dumb to put "We know who's running the project, and we know where he works" together; it worked for them for way too long. The closest we had to involvement by a single OTL Manhattan Project veteran was a peek at the notebooks of Fitz's British counterparts--and that not until the final act. And the Rebs STILL manage to deploy their first bomb before the US does. Not only that, at the time the war ended they also had more advanced information on upgrading to hydrogen bombs. If HT won't let things like that stop his characters from going nuclear, the issues you've raised certainly won't, either. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :Reviewing France's atomic history: it could go nearly any old way HT wants. Bertrand Goldschmidt, a one-time assistant of Marie Curie's, and who appears to be more or less the father of the French bomb in OTL, had to flee France after Vichy began persecuting the Jews. He wound up as part of the Manhattan Project working on plutonium extraction. After the war, he came home and put what he learned to good use. :I doubt he'd have the resources to make much of a weapon, but he obviously didn't have to flee France either. So it's possible a nascent French project exists in 1941/1942 (which is still more than they had in OTL). TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::He wouldn't have had to flee France, but he might have done so anyway; Halevy did. Granted the circumstances were very different, but at the same time, no Jew would think that potentially putting superweapons at Hitler's disposal was a good idea. He might have started sabotaging his own work, or he might have resigned. On the other hand, he might also have trusted his government not to share with Germany, and worked with greater urgency if he felt a nuclear deterrent might be essential to France maintaining independence within SecCo. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC) Anyway, I wouldn't mind being wrong about all this. I'm coming to realize that a WWII into which the atomic bomb never factors has potential. Furthermore, it could easily wind up being the biggest lasting change to the endgame of the war over OTL, now that the Big Switch has been negated. There's always Communist Spain (though notice that the war "drags on;" I guess the Republicans still won't manage to close the deal), but I couldn't care less about that at this point. Drags on is right. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC) *yawn* Lemp Oh, and I see reference to "thrilling submarine battles." If I believed Lemp was on the verge of doing something thrilling, or anything that falls short of mind-numbingly boring, that would have me somewhat excited. Alas, I don't believe it for a second. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC) : Lemp's encounter with the Soviet tank-plane thing-a-ma-bob was as exciting as it would ever get with that guy. And I use "exciting" rather loosely.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::He's at his best in those scenes where he acts as something of a barometer for political pressure in the homeland. I wish we'd see him transferred to a role where he does that permanently. Looks like that won't happen. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC) :::I had similar thoughts--he seems to have a sense of when things are going bad in the government. Maybe he leads a mutiny somewhere, although, I'd just as soon see him replaced by Donitz. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::I feel like his moving to a role that plays more to this secondary strength is a ship that's sailed. And I'm not sure I do want him to lead a mutiny, seeing as the only "grievance" that's really had him angry with his superiors is when they rejected his demands to start throwing Norwegian women into sex slavery. That's not the cause of a group of rebels I care to root for. ::::I'd be happy to see him replaced by anyone. Herb Druce, Constantine Jenkins, Papa Goldman, Max Weinstein, what's-her-name (Rudel's squeeze), even Arno Baatz. Anyone from any area of the story who looks remotely ready for a promotion. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:24, February 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::: Exploring WW I and WW II parallels in the series, what if Lemp leads some sort of equivalent of the Kronstadt Revolt, say the Kiel Revolt? Sailors dissatisfied with their government's policy rebel, ultimately get put down. We get the best of both worlds: Lemp does something exciting and Lemp gets "disappeared" JudgeFisher (talk) 07:36, February 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I'm all for sending him out in a blaze of glory. Again, however, it's a pretty disturbing idea that we'd be expected to side with the character who's demanding that women be forced into sex slavery. One hopes he'd find something else to rebel over if that's what he ends up doing; however, nothing else to date has gotten him excited, and he's seen some pretty ugly developments. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC) All Quiet on the Two Fronts I can't really think of anything more to say about what I expect or want from this book. Still, it strikes me that it's unusual for us to have said so little on it this late into the year. I can tell you I'm not at all excited about the book and am planning to wait till the library gets a copy in so I won't have to spend money. Still, any new thoughts anyone's had as it gets closer? Any new reviews or something anyone's seen? Turtle Fan (talk) 04:26, June 5, 2013 (UTC) :: I went back and skimmed through the previous books a little. Found one little detail that got my OCD going. The Russian who surrenders to the French in CdE is Yevgeny Borisovich Novikov. In TBS, Anastas Mouradian meets a Captain Boris Novikov in Siberia. Now, the Russian naming system makes Yevgeny "Son of Boris" Novikov...coincidence, laziness on HT's part, or is he setting us up for something else? What purpose did Yevgeny's surrender serve since the Frenchies re-switch sides? For sheer irony that someone surrenders to the French? JudgeFisher (talk) 04:36, June 5, 2013 (UTC) :::Why would he have given them related names? Well it could be any of the three reasons you've suggested, or it could be a little nugget for attentive readers to home in on. He's been known to do that. The one I found was in HB, when an amiable older Lizard casually asked whether Jonathan knew Telerep. It's a bit of a mystery why I knew exactly who Telerep was six and a half years later. :::As to why a Soviet would surrender to the French--a lot of scenes gave a pretty strong impression of the French just standing around while trying to muster up the gumption to follow where Britain had led. Reminders that they were still actively waging war against the USSR were needed. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:12, June 5, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, makes sense. Just like we already had a Ms. Mouradian in Gunpowder Empire, a Mr. Mouradian in Curious Notions, and a Saul Goldman in Southern Victory. :::::::I wouldn't read too much into those other examples. They involve common names which signal ethnicity clearly in characters whose ethnicities feature ptominently in their arcs. More importantly, none of them are in the TWTPE continuity. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:22, June 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I'm slightly embarassed to admit that I did pre-order the book on Amazon. I want to see if Pete McGill is dead, what happens to Vladivostok, where the germ warfare is going (I should say where HT is going with it), and if the U.S. does go to war with Hitler. Other than that, I just feel some sense of obligation to finish this six-book series.JudgeFisher (talk) 03:11, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::::CdE left me pretty disappointed. As I'd feared--but had not expected--based on my comments above, all it really did was quickly negate TBS, the best book of the series. It raised no new issues which caught my interest. As to old ones, like when the US will finally enter the European war and whether anyone's building atomic bombs and most importantly if there's ever going to be a point to the boring-ass Spanish subplot, we haven't gotten any hints yet and I see no reason to believe that will change. :::::::You know, I'd quite forgotten that Pete's spent the last year in limbo. He's grown on me since HW when I mourned the tree that died in vain to provide pages for his scenes, but he's still not holding my interest. If we'd left Sam Carsten in a similar bind, I'd have lain awake many a night wondering how he'd fare. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:22, June 6, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::No doubt - all of this series' characters are as flat as the pages they're written on. Once in a great while, someone shines through but then fades just as quickly. Two Fronts and the sixth book will probably take us to 1944, and I worry HT will just leave us with some "fine mess" ending which will do nothing more than show that this war made the geopolitical situation even more f-d up than WW I.JudgeFisher (talk) 05:09, June 6, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I was really excited about Walsh till he sat out the coup. Now it's like he's been reset to what he was before. I want to care about Peggy but she's not giving me much reason. I liked Sarah at first, I've cooled on her. Mouradian's all right. Weinberg seems to be getting better all the time; shame he's stuck in Spanish purgatory. The rest I don't care about and never have. I fear Demange has too much personality for POV. :::::::::I had the same concern when I saw Kuchkov as a POV but it worked out OK so it may do the same for Demange. For the rest, I agree. ML4E (talk) 19:56, June 7, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I have no idea where the story's going and I care less and less. The immediate reversal of TBS reinforces my initial impression that it's going to be another tribute to parallelism and will end up the same as OTL. If the Republicans ever win in Spain--assuming their war doesn't just drag on ad infinitum with no result, which is looking likeliest--and everything else is the same as before, we'd have the possibility of a Soviet client state on NATO's western flank. Mildly interesting, but hardly worth a years-long from-the-beginning WWII AH to get there. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:14, June 7, 2013 (UTC) No Previews! It's worth pointing out that things really are quiet on multiple fronts as pertains to this book. We are now 40 days out from the scheduled publication date, and there don't seem to have been any reviews posted or any excerpts made available. With previous volumes, we were seeing reviews, longer blurbs, the first couple of sub-chapters, etc as early as mid-May--at least two months in advance of publication, in other words. :True. And those are typically the stimuli that get us going. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC) I've also noticed that the paperback edition of CdE is scheduled to release the same day as TF, which is unusual. TR (talk) 01:12, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :So we won't even have that sneak peak. :Well, here's something to chew on for the hell of it. The Spanish Relublicans' position has grown slowly stronger, and I know TR is expecting they'll win in the end, but they seem to be in no hurry whatsoever to put the proverbial ball in the end zone. What if, instead of one side winning, the civil war drags on and on and on, with shifting alliance systems in the larger conflict constantly rebooting the situation as various great powers turn it into a proxy war? Sort of like OTL's Angola. The Republic has more Stalinists than anything else, but it's still deeply factionalized, and governments other than Moscow have always been involved. The Brits and French have turned the faucet on and off several times depending on their interests. At one point the French were playing both sides at once. The Czechs had no reason to care about Spain, but their own government-in-exile has found war makes strange bedfellows. If it can happen to them it can happen to just about anyone. As for the Nationalists, they've been cozy with Germany all this time. With Italy it's a bit more up and down. None of us believes Germany will win in the end, whatever else happens. At some point they'll notice they're on a sinking ship, and will look for a life raft. Well, hopefully; they have lost their best leader, the one who in OTL so deftly switched from a sort of associate member of the Axis to a similar relationship with NATO. Still, the Republic's playing that game, makes sense their opponents would as well. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::I guess I can buy it. Turtledovian tropes don't quite seem to favor that, IMHO, but he does have it in him to surprise us on occasion. TR (talk) 15:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::::The way I figure it is, if HT really does want the Republic to win, he's already passed up some very organic opportunities to make it happen. And if he wants the Nationalists to win, he'd have them meet with more success--unless maybe their ability to outlast a more dynamic enemy is supposed to provide a moral to the story? So I was trying to think of other options. And since we've got nothing else to discuss this year, might as well spitball something like that. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:07, June 16, 2013 (UTC) :::What will happen to Gibraltar? Now that the Brits have re-switched, will they attempt to re-take Gibraltar? Will the Americans do it for them? I don't think the Republicans are that strong...yet. JudgeFisher (talk) 14:48, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::One gets the sense the Brits retook it already offstage. Maybe the Germans made the Nationalists give it back before the original Big Switch. They must have done something to sweeten the pot. ::::Anyway, the fact that Walsh's journey to Egypt (groan, he could have been so much more interesting than another dime-a-dozen front-liner) was uneventful implies Gibraltar has been resecured. It's unlikely that the Nationalists would let a large force pass by unmolested to fight their two most important allies. If it was retaken by force I'm sure the Brits did it. Farming it out to the Americans would be neither necessary nor desirable. There's no real reason for the US to do it either. The most compelling motivation would be a feel good gesture ("Hey, isn't it great we're all friends again? I'm so happy you switched back that just for that I'm gonna help you out.") Other reasons get remoter and sillier from there. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I disagree: if the Brits retook Gibraltar, I think* HT would have told us . It seems too important a thing not to at least address. While it does appear to be the case that the Brits were unmolested on their way to Egypt, that could very readily be explained by the fact that the Nationalists just didn't have the resources to do much to the Brits,** and the Brits were far more interested in keeping Egypt safe than playing tug-of-war over Gibraltar at the moment. ::::::I think it's safe to assume that the Nationalists still have Gibraltar until HT says otherwise. As I think about it, that could make an interesting plot point for the post-war. Even if the Republicans decisively win, there is no guarantee that they'll want to give it back to the UK. TR (talk) 15:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::::: *--Perhaps "hope" is a better word than "think". ::::: **--I did a very little research--in OTL the Republicans couldn't pull off keeping the Nationalist Army of Africa out of the Strait, and the Brits are almost certainly in better shape than the Army of Africa, while there is no reason to think that the Nationalists are in better shape than the Republicans in those circumstances. :::::::On further reflection you're probably right. Retaking Gibraltar would be a bit too big to happen offstage. So was the ouster of Wilson, but at least we know that happened. Imagine if the Brits just stopped being mentioned in Europe altogether and Walsh spent all his scenes sightseeing without commenting on the coup. CdE could have been worse, though going ad absurdum like this to prove it doedn't really flatter the book. :::::::So no, I don't suppose HT consciously decided to change Gibraltar back without telling anybody. However, I do believe it's possible that he's forgotten about it altogether. It's hardly gotten more attention up to this point than, say, Festherston's temptation to start pill-popping did before that was dropped without a trace. :::::::As to the Republic's didinclination to return Gibraltar, it did send me down a chain of what ifs I found mildly interesting. If the Republic eins the civil war, and the Stalinists win the second civil war that would likely follow, and the increasing parallelism causes the real war to end in a familiar place, you'd have Spain as a Warsaw Pact member. In that situation, letting Britain back into Gibraltar would be the last thing in the world they'd want to do. If NATO didn't then decide that Gibraltar was worth starting The Big One over, they'd have to accept a Soviet navy which could easily project power into the Atlantic. And then the whole containment policy would need to be rethought. The only way to keep it intact as such would be to say "If we can't stop them from getting out of the Med, we'll have to stop them from getting in." Yugoslavia becomes all-important, and its neutrality far harder to maintain. :::::: I'm actually starting to think this series would be more interesting if it had skipped from 1936 to 1949 rather than to 1938. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:07, June 16, 2013 (UTC) Zionism? Had a thought - if the Nazis let the European Jews more or less be, does that mean no Israel, or support for the idea of Israel? JudgeFisher (talk) 20:21, June 11, 2013 (UTC) :The Holocaust certainly accelerated the process in OTL at multiple levels. Take that event away, many of those pressures are gone, others are muted compared with OTL. :You might have an increased push compared to where things were before the war. In addition to Germany's mistreatment of the Jews within its own borders, you have the ghettos in Czechoslovakia, the reports of massacres in the USSR, and the fact that the governments of both the UK and France weren't very sympathetic to the issue. On the other hand, I don't get the sense that Jewish characters we've met have completely given up on their respective home-countries yet, so I don't see a stream of Jewish refugees making their way to Palestine as happened after the Holocaust. :My two cents, anyway. TR (talk) 20:48, June 11, 2013 (UTC) :::Yeah, the Goldmans are still looking for some good in the Germans vis-a-vis von Galen, even the archetypal Russian Ivan Kuchkov has some respect for his Jewish comrades. I'm sure Stalin wouldn't let them leave. Maybe Weinberg gets disillusioned with the Republic and leads something? Or, in the alternative, some portion of Poland, Slovakia, maybe even Germany gets lopped off and re-shaped into a "European Israel?" JudgeFisher (talk) 14:54, June 14, 2013 (UTC) Finally an excerpt Here. TR (talk) 16:26, June 21, 2013 (UTC) So that does answer a couple of questions and shoot down one prediction so far: 1) McGill lived. 2) Gibraltar is still in the Nationalists' hands. 3) Since Smigly-Ridz died on December 2, 1941 in OTL, and the first Walsh scene takes place on Christmas, and there is no reference to Smigly-Ridz having died, I guess he get's a reprieve. TR (talk) 16:35, June 21, 2013 (UTC) :: Two out of three ain't bad :) :: From Rudel's section, it's looking like HT's setting us up for a showdown at Smolensk. I'm kinda hoping Demange and the Frenchies become some sort of a lost batallion that will just stay as an auxilliary division in Russia. From Walsh's section, it might not be impossible that if and when Italian Libya falls, perhaps with some assistance from (what I'm assuming still is) French North Africa, the English go for Sicily, and the French drop down through Northern Italy. Of course, that all depends on how both France and England fare against the Germans. JudgeFisher (talk) 19:06, June 22, 2013 (UTC) :::Demange and his men stranded in Russia could be a promising turn of events, but I think the needs of the story will find him making his way to the Western Front safely sooner rather than later. :::The Walsh scene appears to be incomplete. I hope the decision to cut that scene was more of a space consideration for the preview rather than hiding the fact that he dies on Christmas. While HT hasn't used Walsh to the best effect (i.e., giving us a POV into the British coup), I do like the character. TR (talk) 22:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC) Kirus Review A maddeningly vague review from Kirkus may be found here. TR (talk) 22:06, June 28, 2013 (UTC) :Haven't we seen that before? It feels very familiar (and not just the half that's recapping previous volumes). Turtle Fan (talk) 03:33, June 29, 2013 (UTC)